I never defend Apple, but they aren't grasping at straws.
They own design patents on those things, and that gives them protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them. Arguments about obviousness are irrelevant under design patent law.
> protection against things that could be reasonably
> mistaken for them
That sounds more like trademark law.
That said, Apple has to incur a bit of penalty here for being first-to-market. Since the iPad was the first-to-market and the most widely recognized brand, it would not be uncommon for someone to see any tablet (regardless of design similarities) and say, "Is that an iPad?"
It's like Henry Ford claiming that no one else can make cars at the genesis of the Model-T because cars in general are associated with the Ford Motor Company. It would be ridiculous to say that anything with 4 wheels and a combustion engine might be mistaken for a Ford, therefore Ford is the only one that can make cars.
Ironically, Ford fought tooth and nail against an overly generic patent for automobile (similar to a design patent because the guy who owns it is a lawyer and never built an actual model before getting the patent) and won.
Design patents are far more like trademark law than utility patents. And, frankly, the wiggle room for arguing infringement is far less than for Trademarks.
Samsung is not in court for having the same rough shape, or bezel, or frame, or dock connector, or packaging as an iPad. It's there because it has all of these things.
They can literally only lose if the court determines they were making a KIRF.
I'm not a fanboy at all I use Windows, Linux, Apple, Android I'm not employed by 'company X' so unless they pay me I can criticize all I want.
From what I understand Apple refuses to pay Motorola royalties on the basic patent of a "hand-held mobile telephone radio" (or whatever phrase is used). If Apple refuses to pay for such a basic fundamental mobile phone patent how do they expect anyone to take them seriously for simple esthetics/design of a device?
It's not that simple. They don't need to pay Motorola to sue others. If we're speaking legally here then your argument has no legs. If we're talking realistically then you have a point but the courts will think that's irrelevant and make a decision based on the merits of this case regardless of any hypocrisy by Apple either real or perceived.
Now, speaking from a real world perspective and not about law, I'd say that the Motorola case is a lot like the Ford case. I'm the case of Ford you really can't stop others from making 4-wheeled, passenger carrying, combustion engine cars. There was just no other way at the time. Same for "hand-held mobile telephone radios". If Apple gets sued for such a generic technology then every cell phone and walki-talkie maker not paying Motorola royalties should too. In the case of Apple v Samsung, they aren't arguing that others can't make a tablet. You can easily make tablets that are similar (because even I will admit that nowadays there really isn't much more you can do with tablet design) and people have without infringing. But the Samsung tablet is so close to the iPad that its almost indistinguishable unless you inspect it further. It's like if someone made a project management web app and called it "OperatingBase" and it had all the features of Basecamp, a website with the same colors, similar logo, and all the rest. Well 37Signals couldn't sue the other project management app developers (let's pretend they have design patents in this case) but they sure can try to stop the asshole who is very obviously trying to rip off their product and ride its coat tails by hoping consumers who don't know better will think its the same exact thing.
>protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them //
I'm going to guess you're misdescribing the law here as elsewise they could simply point out that the origin of the goods and hence their distinctiveness is clearly born out by the articles bearing the trademarks of the respective companies.
I know practically nothing of US (presumably this is the jurisdiction in question) Design Patents ... do you have a pointer to a primer (or just the USC), thanks.
They own design patents on those things, and that gives them protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them. Arguments about obviousness are irrelevant under design patent law.
See http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...